Skip to main content

About your Search

20100901
20100930
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
about the rest of us? and there is a lot bween ron paul and dennis kucinich. what about the rest of us? my view is that i do not want to be involved in endless wars anymore thanhey do, but i do insist that we win wars we cannot afford to lose. now, the left and some of our libertarian friends believe we cannot afford this war and they e ready to leave. what happens if we leave and does it really matter? all of you are smart. you can aner that question probably better than i can. i can tell you what i think and that is probably why you came. if we lose i afghanistan, whatever that may be, it will matter. and what is losing? i think losing would be allowing the taliban to come back in power in portions or all of the country. i have one simple thought -- the taliban running anything is not a good idea. particularly i you happen to be a young woman and you believe in religious freedom and tolerance. but what does it really matter? their places -- there are places on the planet where women are treated horribly and we do not have one troop. so this is not just about righting wrongs that may
on for a time frame, even though the dispersant used was pre authorized, the issue that seemed to be elevated to a national response team in washington at some point, a decision was made that the epa should play a more active role, then call for. on may 20, and you advised bp to reduce the application of dispersant and provide the availability of less toxic dispersants. please help us understand your concerns and the process you went through in conjunction with the other federal agencies. the epa had more of a commanding role than anticipated than in the area contingency plan. is there some recommendation you can provide to us about what kind of guideline that we might recommend that would elevate the decision making to more routine decisions of these dispersants to these extraordinary kinds of decisions? >> thanks. i will probably end where you ended. there is a need for those kinds of guidelines. every day you make the decisions that are before you. over time, one of the things i discussed often is duke are not only looking at the decision before you that today, but also at the response. fr
-- the department of defense leaders, not by the service chiefs, a process that was supposed to inform us with one that merely ratifies a politically-driven decision. we all fall or to hearing your thoughts about whether the comprehensive review should be allowed to run its course in this fashion, and what you feel about the affected could have on the united states marine corps. we also look forward to hearing your professional military advice about what policy is best for your branch of our armed services, the effectiveness and readiness of which you will be entrusted with maintaining at the highest levels if confirmed in this position. today our military continues to be engaged in combat operations, and career officers, in ceo's, and their families, are being asked to do so much. it would be a mistake to ignore the views of our troops and the military advice of the service chiefs, and for the senate to act prematurely to repeal the tariff don't ask, don't tell law for the sake of fulfilling a political promise. i look for to the testimony of general amos today, and i again thank him and his fami
is effectively using traditional grassroots methods, that it begi in the classical sense of grass roots as a sort of a neighbor to neighbor wellspring in that way. and they were handed perhaps the spoon fed infrastructure and the funding to achieve a clear objective spiritoso the remark about the mainstream media not being aware of or being on where of reporting on the validity of the grass-roots movement, i think is a little bit disingenuous when you look at i guess a of a classical understaing of what grassroots is and how it really begins as two stepping into something and then using those methods. so that's my question if that makes sense. >> david? >> i tried to tou on that in my remarks. i don't think -- i think liberal spend a lot of time trying to thread the movement by pointing that out and conservative spend time trying to utterly deny it and neither of them is right because like i was saying, these organizations have been around for years and they were set up to do something like this. freedom works set up because they figure at some point millions of americans would to be willing to s
drag us back to 1970. >> i inkjected -- i injected history into our discussion early on. i have to at least note the two-state solution that is been part of the diplomacy in this conflict since 1937. we're now going on 73 years, and the chances that the two-state solution, in my view, is going to disappear from the lexicon in this conflict any time soon are fairly soon. with that, ladies and gentlemen, let me thank all my panelists for participating in today's event and thank all of you and all of you out in for -- out there for joining us in our discussion. [applause] >> thank you. >> search the term "mid east peace" on line at the c-span library and you will get more than ,000 transcripts including an early mike wallace interview of abba eban. it is washington and the world your way. >> president obama's address to the nation last night in about a half-hour. before that, house minority leader john boehner's speech on troop withdrawals. >> vice president joe biden will attend an exchange in military command ceremony on c-span2. after that, the financial inquigs begins a series
for afghanistan. whenever you do a strategic plan, used her with a list of planning assumptions. if any of the internet to be wrong -- when every do a strategic plan, you start out with a list of planning assumptions. if any of them turn out to be wrong, then you have a problem. they looked at the afghan presidential election and started rethinking whether or not we had a credible partner that we could work with, by, and threw in afghanistan. if you look at the way we americans look at counterinsurgency, we are a lot from the british and different experiences of the 20th-century. -- the british and french experiences of the 20th-century. the british and northern -- the british in northern ireland, they thought they were in their own turf. by the same token, the french in algeria, the french considered algeria part of metropolitan france. it was non-negotiable. when the conflict began, algeria was a part of france. that was not from the perspective of the fln. that informed the way they thought about the conflict. you kind of assume that your interests will line up with the host governme
it completely right. the problem is not islam. the problem are people who have used islam to commit violent acts against our country and our people but what happened after we asked all these questions was a cottage industry who actually had an ax to grind against muslims and against arabs in particular, they ended up providing most of the answers. they wrote books and got them published. they testified before congress and dominateded the air waves on radio and television. i will never forget a hearing held in the senate on islam featuring three guys who -- actually if you had the reverse and the three muslims were testifying on the nature of judaism in an arab country, you would hear whoops and yells. but it was acceptable for this to happen. and the lies they told and the bigotry they spread were horrific. and yet people were nodding in the audience because that's all they heard. that's all they were in a position to hear. these guys inflated every incidents of violence as somehow evidence they were right, and they have done damage. shortly after 9/11 when we polled america, what we found was p
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7